CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Montrose Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely, infection control was effective and enough staff were deployed. Relatives had different views about whether staffing levels were sufficient.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff assessed people's needs, provided training and supported healthcare, nutrition and communication needs. Some historical deprivation of liberty applications were still waiting for authorisation, and one staff member wanted more tailored training on capacity assessments.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. Inspectors saw positive interactions and support for people's choices and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. The home provided daily activities and supported relationships, but not all 'looking ahead' end-of-life documents had been completed and some relatives were unsure about complaints information.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had effective audits, action plans and oversight. However, there was no registered manager in post after the previous manager left in March 2022, although a regional support manager was present and recruitment was under way.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but there was no registered manager and some end-of-life planning was incomplete.
Inspectors visited on 12, 13, 16 and 19 May 2022. One inspector spoke with staff and relatives, observed care, reviewed records and checked infection prevention measures.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines procedures, good infection control, suitable training and care plans that reflected people's needs and preferences.
The home had caring relationships with residents and supported activities, healthcare access and family contact. Inspectors also found some areas to improve, including the lack of a registered manager, incomplete end-of-life planning and staff training in this area.
Safe medicines and infection control
Medicines records and controlled-drug stock checks were correct. The home had suitable infection control arrangements, PPE and safe visiting procedures.
“Staff managed medicines safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff formed genuine relationships with residents, understood their preferences and supported their dignity and independence.
“It was apparent staff knew people well and how best to care for them.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Care plans included people's histories, likes, dislikes and communication needs. They were reviewed to reflect changing needs.
“Care files contained a range of person-centred information.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered activities each day and helped residents stay in contact with relatives, including during COVID-19 restrictions.
“The home provided activities each day and a schedule was displayed.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider and managers used audits and action plans to identify risks and improvements. Staff and relatives were able to share their views.
“Effective quality assurance systems were in place to monitor and review performance and ensure risks were managed.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager when inspectors visited because the previous manager had left in March 2022. A regional support manager was providing a permanent presence and interviews had been planned.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
End-of-life preparation
needs fixingStaff had not completed end-of-life care training, and not every resident's wishes for the end stages of life had been recorded. The home had joined a hospice education programme to improve this.
“Staff training information provided to us did not identify any end of life care training had been completed, and staff we spoke with confirmed this.” from the report
Outstanding legal authorisations
needs fixingSeveral older applications to lawfully restrict a person's liberty were still awaiting local authority authorisation. The provider had followed these up.
“Several historical DoLS applications were still waiting to be authorised; this was due to a delay by the local authority.” from the report
Staffing pressure
minorThe inspection found enough staff overall, but relatives gave different views and one relative felt staff appeared busy. Ask how staffing is reviewed when residents' needs change.
“One relative told us, "I think [my relative's] needs are met, but I think they need more staff because they appear busy to me.” from the report
Complaints information
minorThe complaints process worked for complaints received, but some relatives were unsure whether they had been given information about how to complain.
“Some relatives were unsure if they had been given information on how to make a complaint.” from the report
- 01Who is currently responsible for the home while there is no registered manager, and when will the recruitment process be completed?
- 02Have staff now completed the planned end-of-life care training through the hospice programme?
- 03Have staff discussed and recorded my relative's wishes for end-of-life care in the 'looking ahead' document?
- 04How do you check that staffing levels remain enough when residents' needs change or staff vacancies arise?
- 05How will you give my family clear information about making a complaint or raising a concern?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided, the premises and infection prevention and control measures. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 July 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Montrose Hall
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingdown from OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- February 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- May 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 May 2021.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Wigan
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 92 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.